Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202334602)

Decision
Case ID	202334602
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lived with her 2 sons. She was dissatisfied that her home was not included in a loft insulation programme in summer 2022. She also said that the landlord took too long to repair her immersion heater. The resident reported that both issues contributed to higher energy costs, which she was struggling to manage. She also told the landlord that she experienced depression and anxiety.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s requests for loft insulation.
   2. The immersion heater repairs.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s requests for loft insulation.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the immersion heater repairs.
   3. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failings identified in its handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. In summary we have found that:
   1. The landlord provided inconsistent communication about the loft insulation. However, it put this right by apologising and offering compensation in line with our remedies guidance.
   2. The landlord admitted that it unreasonably delayed repairing the immersion heater. While it attempted to put this right by offering compensation, its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
   3. The landlord did not respond to the complaint in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. However, it offered proportionate compensation.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 07 January 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £830 for any distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its handling of the immersion heater repairs (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £330 compensation and £300 increased energy costs reimbursement it previously offered if this has already been paid) This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 07 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should re-offer the resident the £185 compensation previously offered for its handling of the resident’s requests for loft insulation and its complaint handling, if not already paid. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 February 2023	The resident complained to the landlord that her house was not included during a loft insulation programme in summer 2022. She said the house was cold and the electricity was costing her £100 per week. The resident also mentioned repairs were needed to her front door and in the hallway.
12 April 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it would not consider the resident’s complaint about the missed loft insulation because it happened over 6 months ago. It confirmed the programme was organised by an external firm and it was unable to recall them. The landlord confirmed it would keep the resident’s property on record for any future insulation programmes. It also advised the resident to contact her energy provider about any concerns with paying bills.   The landlord admitted failures in its handling of the other repairs raised and offered compensation, including £25 for complaint handling.
6 November 2023	The resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said her house needed to have the loft insulated and her energy company had told her this was the landlord’s responsibility.
8 December 2023	The landlord said the resident complained about its handling of the immersion heater repairs on this date.
18 December 2023	The resident wrote to the landlord and said her energy bills had increased and she had wasted annual leave due to appointments the contractors failed to attend. She said that the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) for her property was out of date. The resident also told the landlord these issues were affecting her as she was suffering from depression, anxiety, and insomnia.
5 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint about the loft insulation. It said that due to miscommunication, it had failed to review this issue until 23 October 2023. When the review took place, the landlord found that the 2022 programme had been carried out following instructions by the Local Authority and therefore cancelled its order. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s property was not eligible for loft insulation under any of its own programmes because the EPC rating was C.   The landlord apologised for its poor communication and offered the resident £85 compensation and an additional £25 for delays at stage 2.
5 January 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint about the immersion heater. It upheld it and said: the repair request raised on 17 November 2023 was still outstanding and already outside of its 7-day timescale for priority repairs its contractors had missed 2 appointments it was unable to reimburse the resident for missed work as she confirmed she had taken annual leave it offered the resident £300 towards additional energy costs and advised that further claims should be made through its liability insurer The landlord also offered the resident £325 compensation made up of: £70 for time taken to resolve the repairs (£10 per week) £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience £20 for 2 missed appointments £25 for poor complaint handling £10 for delays in completing other repairs
25 January 2024	The resident requested to escalate her complaint as she said the repair was still outstanding.
4 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and acknowledged that 2 further appointments had been missed. It also said that a plumber had attended on 21 February 2024 but could not complete the repair because an electrician was required. It said it was scheduled to complete the repairs on 6 March 2024.   The landlord offered an additional £65 compensation made up of: £20 for 2 missed appointments £20 for time and trouble caused £25 for poor complaint handling
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us because she was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered for both complaints. She said she had spent significantly more on electricity due to the missed loft insulation and problems with the immersion heater. The resident also said that she had lost annual leave due to cancelled appointments and experienced disruption during the holiday period. The resident has since moved to a new property.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for loft insulation.
Finding	Reasonable redress

5. The resident told us that the issues raised had an impact on her mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
6. The landlord confirmed that the loft insulation programme in 2022 was undertaken by the Local Authority. We can only investigate complaints about Local Authorities where they are acting as the landlord. In this case, the Local Authority was not acting as the landlord which means we have no power to investigate any issues relating to their contractor missing her home during the loft insulation programme. The resident may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman regarding the actions of the Local Authority. Our investigation focused on the actions taken by the landlord from the time the resident first contacted it about the issue.
7. When the resident initially approached the landlord, it checked if her property was eligible for loft insulation under any of its own programmes. It also signposted her to her energy company regarding concerns with paying bills. This was reasonable. While the landlord said the programme was carried out by an external contractor and it was unable to recall them, it missed the opportunity to clarify that the programme was organised by the Local Authority. The landlord did not make this clear until 10 months later.
8. The landlord apologised for any confusion this caused and offered the resident a total of £85 compensation. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
9. The resident confirmed that the loft was insulated in March 2024, and we understand this was completed by the landlord on a discretionary basis. Had the landlord communicated more clearly in April 2023, the resident might have been able to seek assistance from the Local Authority. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this would have resulted in the loft being insulated any earlier. It would therefore be disproportionate to hold the landlord responsible for any energy costs incurred as a result of not having the insulation installed earlier.
10. The landlord’s compensation offer for poor communication is consistent with our remedies guidance for cases where there was a minor failure which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. While the landlord has not identified any learning, we have addressed this in our learning section below.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the immersion heater repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

11. The resident reported that the immersion heater switch had stopped working on 17 November 2023. The landlord’s operatives attended the property on 24 November 2023 but noted additional checks were needed. The operatives came out to the property again in January and February 2024, however it was not until 5 March 2024 that the issue was partially rectified. According to the landlord’s records, it returned the immersion heater to its full working capacity on 17 May 2024.
12. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of its repairs policy applicable at the time. However, in its stage 1 response, it confirmed repairs of this nature should be completed within its priority timescale of 7 days. The landlord’s repairs guide does not specify what it considers a priority repair. It only mentions emergencies, routine repairs and major works. When the landlord raised the job on its system it marked it with a 28-day timescale. This shows an inconsistency in the landlord’s application of its repairs procedures and timescales.
13. The landlord took almost 26 weeks to complete the repairs which was unreasonable. The resident explained that while she was able to heat up water during this time, she had to use the boost feature to do so. This used more electricity and was therefore more expensive. The resident confirmed she had a pre-paid meter and was unable to provide usage statements.
14. The landlord recognised this financial impact on the resident in its stage 1 response and offered the resident a £300 contribution towards electricity costs. Under its compensation policy, this is the maximum amount it can award. Larger claims must be submitted through its liability insurer, and the landlord provided the resident with details on how to do this, which was reasonable.
15. The landlord also admitted it had missed 4 appointments during the period between December 2023 and March 2024. The resident said she had to take annual leave for these appointments and she wanted the landlord to compensate her for this. The landlord’s compensation policy says it does not consider paid leave to be a loss. This is a reasonable approach because residents are expected to give access for repairs to be carried out. However, in circumstances such as this one, where appointments were missed, we may consider compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
16. The landlord offered a total of £330 for its handling of the immersion heater repairs. This included £10 for each missed appointment which was in line with its compensation policy. The overall amount of compensation would have been proportionate had the landlord completed the repairs on 6 March 2024, as promised in its stage 2 response. However, it took a further 10 weeks to fully resolve the issues.
17. As a result, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The landlord has also not demonstrated any learning from the outcome.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

18. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2022). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.  
19. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the loft insulation complaint 28 working days outside of the timescales set out by its policy. It requested an extension at stage 2, but its response was still late by a few days and it did not update the resident further.
20. In terms of the complaint about the immersion heater repairs, the landlord issued its stage 1 response 3 working days late and its stage 2 response 7 working days late.
21. The landlord offered £25 compensation for complaint handling delays in each of its 4 complaint responses which meant that in comparison its offers did not reflect the length of delay. A more reasonable approach would have been for the landlord to assess the severity and duration of each issue and adjust the compensation accordingly.
22. The total compensation the landlord offered for complaints handling across all of its responses was £100. Overall this was proportionate to the impact of the complaint handling failings on the resident. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact.  

Learning

23. Landlords should ensure their repairs management process minimises repeated visits and delays. In this case, internal communication issues led to the wrong contractors attending and several appointments were missed. Had the landlord kept to scheduled appointments and allocated the correct tradespeople at the first opportunity, the delays could have been avoided.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord provided detailed records of repair visits and contractor comments, which helped us understand what happened at each visit. Landlords should maintain accurate and comprehensive records of repairs to support effective complaint handling.

Communication

25. Landlords should ensure they follow up on internal communications promptly when information is needed to respond to residents. Had the landlord checked with the relevant team sooner, it would have identified that the loft insulation programme was organised by the Local Authority.